How much cardio is to much cardio?

I was gonna start my cardio at 5 days a week. M(hiit ), T(liss), W(hiit), Th(liss), F(hiit). I was just wondering how much is too much. Hiit will last 20 min or so. Liss 45 at a lil faster the a walk. So fast walk haha. If you guys have any suggestions or criticism I wanna hear it.

Cardio for? Cardio is tricky. You don't really want to start out too high because eventually your body will adapt and you'll have to increase cardio to insane amounts. Depends on your goals as well. Metabolic syndrome is something to consider as well as too much cardio can be damaging...

Just telling us you want to cut still doesn't provide us with much. How much do you want to lose? Where are you starting? What are you eating? What do the rest of your workouts look like? I agree with PalmFist in that you don't want to start out overly aggressive with cardio. You need to leave cards in your pocket for when you stop losing and need to introduce a new stimulus. If you make a dietary change first and then give that some time to see how that works, then you can play around with a little cardio after that. I personally hold out on cardio for as long as possible because I despise it. I can stay cardio-free for as close to 3 weeks out from a show. All diet-controlled with some METcons here and there.

Calories in vs. calories out, just like everyone is saying you can lose easily without any cardio. The last 5 months I've dropped 4% bf with no cardio other than intense boning...lol. I agree with Epolis on keeping the cards in the pocket, dropping the fat with no cardio, means when you introduce it to your training, you don't have to do that much from the start. Bringing up Palm's point that your body will adapt to anything that you continuously do, aka starting cardio out high, only means you have to increase it from there

3000 kcals clean. Will post meals when not on mobile. And looking to get to as low as bf% possible in 8-10 weeks. Not looking to loose a specific amount of weight each week. I would think .5 to 1lbs would be sufficient enough to maintain muscle. And lose body fat. I have not been bf% checked. But of I were to estimate 12-13%.

The reason people tend to believe this is because when people lower calories, they tend to lower carbs. Lowering carbs causes the body to burn fat. All calories are not created equal.

This would be dependant per person. I must be a freak cause high carb, low carb, high protein, low fat, high fat, no matter what I do I can lose. I would say that changing the macros around does change the appearance of muscle definition for me

Calories in vs calories out is a good basis for dieting whether on a cut or a bulk. Most BBer's can switch btwn cutting or bulking on something as simple as a 10-15% difference in calories. The percentages are just as important though. I like 40/40/20 or 40/30/30.

The reason people tend to believe this is because when people lower calories, they tend to lower carbs. Lowering carbs causes the body to burn fat. All calories are not created equal.

Not quite, and I have posted against this before in that other thread you called me out on. Being in a calorie deficit mobilises fatty acids whilst exercise enables the mobilised fatty acids to be used as a fuel regardless of whether you lower carbs or fats. The ideal words being calorie deficit.

You coould potentially argue that the law of thermodynamics may not apply directly to open systems, but it at least holds true in most regards. For example, losing weight implies a calorie deficit and gaining weight implies a calorie excess. You do NOT have to lower carbs to 'burn' fat; you can see the studies and things I posted in the other thread if need be.

Ok, well I will give you this
"If you are consuming enough fat to meet all your body’s requirements, your body won’t go after the fat in the fat cells no matter how severely you restrict your carbs. You will burn dietary fat only and no body fat. And you won’t lose weight." Low-carb and calories » The Blog of Michael R. Eades, M.D.

But again, if you drop calories without dropping any carbs (meaning you drop fat + protein) lean tissues will be targeted for energy. So although you may weigh less pounds/kg, we need to address body composition % changes from lean tissues vs. adipose tissues.

Ok, well I will give you this
"If you are consuming enough fat to meet all your body’s requirements, your body won’t go after the fat in the fat cells no matter how severely you restrict your carbs. You will burn dietary fat only and no body fat. And you won’t lose weight." Low-carb and calories » The Blog of Michael R. Eades, M.D.

But again, if you drop calories without dropping any carbs (meaning you drop fat + protein) lean tissues will be targeted for energy. So although you may weigh less pounds/kg, we need to address body composition % changes from lean tissues vs. adipose tissues.

No, but you keep calling peple out on things that hold truth yet the things you posted have been refuted many times.

In any case, the law of thermodynamics still holds weight here; and I have posted studies that show that high carb-low fat diets do indeed work. When in a calorie deficit, the body is able to release FFAs into the plasma for use as a fuel.

Just an observation, the first thing you posted actually doesn't support your viewpoint? It states that if you meet your daily requirements via fat then you won't burn fat no matter how much you restrict your carbs. he is referring to the law of thermodynamics, restricting carbs whilst still at maintenance will not result in weight loss.

No, but you keep calling peple out on things that hold truth yet the things you posted have been refuted many times.

In any case, the law of thermodynamics still holds weight here; and I have posted studies that show that high carb-low fat diets do indeed work. When in a calorie deficit, the body is able to release FFAs into the plasma for use as a fuel.

Just an observation, the first thing you posted actually doesn't support your viewpoint? It states that if you meet your daily requirements via fat then you won't burn fat no matter how much you restrict your carbs. he is referring to the law of thermodynamics, restricting carbs whilst still at maintenance will not result in weight loss.

Battle of the alphas!? Lol. Your a joke. Do you even have any nutritional/chemistry/biology educational background to bring to the table? Or do you just read shyt and take it as gospel. Pretty sure it's the latter

How exactly am I wrong? Even if carb intake constitutes the majority of your daily diet, if the amount consumed does not match the amount needed for daily activity, the body mobilises its own stored energy (majority fat) to restore energy balance (homeostatis). And thus activates weight loss.

How exactly am I wrong? Even if carb intake constitutes the majority of your daily diet, if the amount consumed does not match the amount needed for daily activity, the body mobilises its own stored energy (majority fat) to restore energy balance (homeostatis). And thus activates weight loss.

It's hard to have a discussion with you without you taking it personally. So I'm not sure how to respond.

If we could just discuss and not compete for the internet's biggest d!ck, perhaps we could both learn something. I don't know everything and don't pretend to, but I do know I had a 42+" waist for 3 years and now I have a 34. So telling me I'm wrong for doing stuff that's worked for me ain't going to fly.

I was gonna start my cardio at 5 days a week. M(hiit ), T(liss), W(hiit), Th(liss), F(hiit). I was just wondering how much is too much. Hiit will last 20 min or so. Liss 45 at a lil faster the a walk. So fast walk haha. If you guys have any suggestions or criticism I wanna hear it.

It's hard to have a discussion with you without you taking it personally. So I'm not sure how to respond.

You said I was wrong, so i asked where I was wrong.

Originally Posted by threeFs

If we could just discuss and not compete for the internet's biggest d!ck, perhaps we could both learn something. I don't know everything and don't pretend to, but I do know I had a 42+" waist for 3 years and now I have a 34. So telling me I'm wrong for doing stuff that's worked for me ain't going to fly.

Now, if we are back on topic, I'm game to discuss.

And low carb worked for you which is good, but that does not imply it is the only way to do something. It is just one means to an end, not the only means. You said someone else was wrong by stating that by lowering carbs it is the only way to lose weight, I disagree. You can achieve weight loss without altering carb intake.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22850317: Unrelated, but what do you make of this @JudoJosh? These findings suggest that a dietary pattern characterised by a low amount of carbohydrate, but high amounts of protein and fat, is associated with a poorer small artery vascular reactivity in patients with increased CV risk.. Interesting.

Hey, I've been lurking on these forums for quite sometime. I'm new to this posting thing, but this particular subject and the research you posted has me interested.

Jiigzz, Would you actually recommend a high-carb over a high-fat?

My cuts in the past have pretty much consisted of a low-carb approach. (The first was from 260 to 180, nothing special though, just a consistent calorie deficit) but the potential benefits of a high-carb, low fat, seem to be advantageous and favorable from my standpoint compared to those of a high-fat one.

Got page not found for those pubmeds. Anyhow, to each his own. I know low carbs works for fat loss for me based on my research and my results. All good here, check your reps

Nobody is saying it doesn't work, but that it works because you are in deficit! A friend of my started a low carb diet when I asked him track calorie intake he was over 1000kcals under maintenance and he thought he was eating enough! Its all about the deficit baby!

After reading this thread it's very obvious to me that what works for one may not for the others. There's no right or wrong, I've see bb ers get tight using both concept. Thanks for the interesting read... Peace

Hey, I've been lurking on these forums for quite sometime. I'm new to this posting thing, but this particular subject and the research you posted has me interested.

Jiigzz, Would you actually recommend a high-carb over a high-fat?

My cuts in the past have pretty much consisted of a low-carb approach. (The first was from 260 to 180, nothing special though, just a consistent calorie deficit) but the potential benefits of a high-carb, low fat, seem to be advantageous and favorable from my standpoint compared to those of a high-fat one.

I'm not a fan of high carb diets as often a high carb diet implies a low fat diet. I myself follow a low carb diet, only began that this year and i'm interested to see how it affects my blood panel. I like the idea of foods that were most prevelant during hunter-gatherer times (less processed) as the focus is on fats and proteins and minimal carbs; but this is really the subject of intense debate.

Originally Posted by threeFs

Got page not found for those pubmeds. Anyhow, to each his own. I know low carbs works for fat loss for me based on my research and my results. All good here, check your reps

Ah, they should work now;

Just to be clear; I always agreed on the stance that low-carb, high fat diets work but the same applies for the opposite.